Missouri Revised Statutes
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 556.041 (2026)
Limitation on conviction for multiple offenses
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
556.041. Limitation on conviction for multiple offenses. — When the same conduct of a person may establish the commission of more than one offense he or she may be prosecuted for each such offense. Such person may not, however, be convicted of more than one offense if:
(1) One offense is included in the other, as defined in section 556.046; or
(2) Inconsistent findings of fact are required to establish the commission of the offenses; or
(3) The offenses differ only in that one is defined to prohibit a designated kind of conduct generally and the other to prohibit a specific instance of such conduct; or
(4) The offense is defined as a continuing course of conduct and the person's course of conduct was uninterrupted, unless the law provides that specific periods of such conduct constitute separate offenses.
--------
(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491)
Effective 1-01-17
(1981) Kidnapping and rape were separate offenses and defendant thus was not punished twice for same offense because confinement and movement of victim were not incidental to commission of rape but increased risk of harm and danger to victim. State v. Stewart (A.), 615 S.W.2d 600.
(1997) Conviction for both rape and child abuse did not subject defendant to double jeopardy. Bass v. State, 950 S.W.2d 940 (Mo.App.W.D.).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 164
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: State v. McTush, 827 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. 1992).
State v. McTush, 827 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. 1992). “Section 556.041, RSMo 1986, provides: When the same conduct of a person may establish the commission of more than one offense he may be prosecuted for each such offense.”
State of Missouri v. Ralph Alexander, 505 S.W.3d 384 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). “But where, as here, the separate statutes prohibiting the same conduct are silent regarding whether cumulative punishment is authorized, we are guided by section 556.041, the general cumulative punishment státute.”
State v. McCrary, 621 S.W.2d 266 (Mo. 1981). “Applying the Blockburger test, we find that arson in the first degree requires, in part, that the defendant "[damage] a building or inhabitable structure, .”
State v. Dravenstott, 138 S.W.3d 186 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). “041; and (2) he claims that the trial court erred in allowing Officer Myers to testify about statements Dravenstott made prior to being given Miranda warnings. Did Dravenstott’s convictions for first-degree assault and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child violate the…”
Peiffer v. State, 88 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. 2002). “The analysis of whether first-degree tampering can be a lesser-ineluded offense of stealing begins with section 556.041, which proscribes in some instances prosecuting a person with more than one offense resulting from the same conduct.”
State v. Gray, 347 S.W.3d 490 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). “In his sixth point, Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence and in entering judgment and sentence against him for conventional second-degree murder and abuse of a child resulting in death, in violation…”
State Ex Rel. Westfall v. Ruddy, 621 S.W.2d 42 (Mo. 1981). “In light of such contingency, the volunteered references in the principal opinion to § 556.041, RSMo 1978, are extremely unfortunate.”
State v. French, 79 S.W.3d 896 (Mo. 2002). “French also cites section 556.041, RSMo, which precludes multiple convictions for offenses constituting a continuing course of conduct and seizes on the language of several cases from the Court of Appeals, see, e.”
Yates v. State, 158 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). “035 in which he claimed that he was subject to multiple punishments for the same offense because the two counts of unlawful use of a weapon were based on the same conduct, which violated the double jeopardy clause and section 556.041. He also alleged that counsel was ineffective…”
State v. Walker, 352 S.W.3d 385 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). “Thus we must look to Section 556.041, which expresses the legislature’s general intent with regard to cumulative punishment.”
State v. Villa-Perez, 835 S.W.2d 897 (Mo. 1992). “He may not, however, be convicted of more than one offense if: (1) One offense is included in the other, as defined in § 556.046; or (2) Inconsistent findings of fact are required to establish the commission of the offenses; or (3) The offenses differ only in that one is defined…”
State v. Clark, 494 S.W.3d 8 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). “We ascertain the allowable unit of prosecution first by looking to the statute under which the defendant was convicted, and if that statute is silent, then by looking to the general cumulative punishment statute, section 556.041. State v. *13 Barber, 37 S.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 556.041(1) — 51 cases
State v. McTush, 827 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. 1992). “Section 556.041, RSMo 1986, provides: When the same conduct of a person may establish the commission of more than one offense he may be prosecuted for each such offense.”
State Ex Rel. Westfall v. Ruddy, 621 S.W.2d 42 (Mo. 1981). “In light of such contingency, the volunteered references in the principal opinion to § 556.041, RSMo 1978, are extremely unfortunate.”
State v. Polson, 145 S.W.3d 881 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
Peiffer v. State, 88 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. 2002). “The analysis of whether first-degree tampering can be a lesser-ineluded offense of stealing begins with section 556.041, which proscribes in some instances prosecuting a person with more than one offense resulting from the same conduct.”
Johnson v. State, 477 S.W.3d 2 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 556.041(1)(2)(3)(4) — 1 case
State v. Sutton, 320 S.W.3d 729 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 556.041(10) — 1 case
State of Missouri v. Aaron D. Lucy, 439 S.W.3d 284 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 556.041(2) — 3 cases
State v. Dravenstott, 138 S.W.3d 186 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). “041; and (2) he claims that the trial court erred in allowing Officer Myers to testify about statements Dravenstott made prior to being given Miranda warnings. Did Dravenstott’s convictions for first-degree assault and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child violate the…”
State v. Lane, 791 S.W.2d 947 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
Ivy v. Lewis (E.D. Mo. 2020).
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 556.041(3) — 22 cases
State of Missouri v. Ralph Alexander, 505 S.W.3d 384 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). “But where, as here, the separate statutes prohibiting the same conduct are silent regarding whether cumulative punishment is authorized, we are guided by section 556.041, the general cumulative punishment státute.”
State v. Prince, 311 S.W.3d 327 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
Bass v. State, 950 S.W.2d 940 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Dunn, 7 S.W.3d 427 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
State v. Dunson, 979 S.W.2d 237 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 556.041(4) — 24 cases
State v. Gray, 347 S.W.3d 490 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). “In his sixth point, Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence and in entering judgment and sentence against him for conventional second-degree murder and abuse of a child resulting in death, in violation…”
State v. Olson, 636 S.W.2d 318 (Mo. 1982).
State v. French, 79 S.W.3d 896 (Mo. 2002). “French also cites section 556.041, RSMo, which precludes multiple convictions for offenses constituting a continuing course of conduct and seizes on the language of several cases from the Court of Appeals, see, e.”
Yates v. State, 158 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). “035 in which he claimed that he was subject to multiple punishments for the same offense because the two counts of unlawful use of a weapon were based on the same conduct, which violated the double jeopardy clause and section 556.041. He also alleged that counsel was ineffective…”
State v. Van Doren, 657 S.W.2d 708 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.